Well I don't think it does but there those that were debating the issue just two years after the DMG was released. This is the earliest debate of AD&D I can find on Google's Usenet archives.
http://groups.google.com/group/net.games.frp/browse_thread/thread/f0f50e8bf0cd626a#
Quoteunc!tim
View profile
More options Oct 20 1982, 6:28 am
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
From: unc!tim
Date: Wed Oct 20 06:28:39 1982
Local: Wed, Oct 20 1982 6:28 am
Subject: AD&D sucks
In a possibly vain attempt to get some discussion on this group, I will now come out of the closet
publicly and say I think that Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is a very poor excuse for a game. Gary Gygax has no conception of how books are actually used in a play situation, and a very poor ability to understand hand-to-hand combat. Further, the magic system is totally counter-intuitive. Finally, the importance of magic items (as well as the ideas of class and level) depersonalizes characters, leading to a "rogue"- type environment. (Oh yes, the description of gods in terms of hit dice, etc., is totally useless to the DM, and the unarmed combat system is an atrocity; sorry to have forgotten these.) The only reason that AD&D is the most popular FRP game around is that it has a major lead on the others--unfortunately, TSR has not used this time to improve the rules, only to lengthen them.
The only game I know of that's worse than AD&D, aside from basic D&D, is Tunnels and Trolls. Both RuneQuest and The Fantasy Trip provide much better alternatives, and I am told that SPI's DragonQuest (now owned by TSR) is hard to learn but very smooth once one learns it. I strongly recommend that any AD&D player buy RuneQuest and play a few games before further glorifying their rather primitive game.
I suppose I should be afraid to sign my name,
Tim Maroney (unc!tim)
rabbit!jj
View profile
More options Oct 20 1982, 12:47 pm
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
From: rabbit!jj
Date: Wed Oct 20 12:47:02 1982
Local: Wed, Oct 20 1982 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: AD&D sucks
Well, who do you think is going argue with you? Not me, and I've only been using ad&d (yes, Gary, it's copyrighted) for about 4 years to administer a huge campaign. The magic rules are ridiculous, the hand-hand combat makes less sense than using a quarterstaff (and a quarterstaff DOESN't help your AC , com on now, I use a staff, and see if I am as easy to hit when I have a staff as when I do not).
The reason that I used ad&d was that it was the only well described system on the market when I started DM'ing.
Face it, d&d was the FIRST system generally out, and it was certainly better than anything else (i.e. nothing). Since it couldn't benefit from experience, it has lots of problems.
Hopefully, a revision will come out someday that UPDATES ad&d to the current level of complexity and sophistication, and provide a system that is a bit more playable in the long run.
As for the "organization" of the books, I couldn't agree more.
Take a look at DragonQuest (tm-BANTAM BOOKS!!!!!!) to see something that is better organized. DQ's rights, except for movie rights, are now owned by Bantam, who is distributing it with their normal line to lots of bookstores, which should increase the distribution of the game
quite a bit. For some strange reason, TSR still owns the movie rights, whatever they amount to. Apparantly SPI had already made a deal with Bantam before TSR called in their loan, and TSR had to stick with it, and
More options Oct 21 1982, 12:48 am
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
From: cbosgd!bsw
Date: Thu Oct 21 00:48:30 1982
Local: Thurs, Oct 21 1982 12:48 am
Subject: Re: AD&D sucks
Ok,so AD&D sucks shit. But what makes the others so much better ?
What are the prices of better frp systems ? are they totally different
or what (ie. are there levels ? ac,hp,etc.?) ?
I'm almost not afraid to sign my name,
Ben Walls
...cbosgd!bsw
watmath!bstempleton
View profile
More options Oct 22 1982, 12:12 am
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
From: watmath!bstempleton
Date: Fri Oct 22 00:12:07 1982
Local: Fri, Oct 22 1982 12:12 am
Subject: Re: AD&D sucks
For all who say AD&D sucks, I will have to agree that Gygax is far from perfect. The following should be remembered - D&D is just a game, and is not supposed to be realistic. If it were realistic, you would get chopped in half and spill real blood. Quite often you want to play a non-realistic scheme. The combat system is one that can be understood by novices and this is good for the game.
Secondly, just about everybody plays d&d quite differently, so nobody really pays that much attention to the tsr rules. They are a handy thing to base something on, and something that somebody from accross the continent can play with. If anybody in my dungeon quotes gygax, I
just say: Oh, so that's how he plays it. Interesting.
I have played with many many combat and magic systems, and find that many people, in their desire to do better, often do worse.
physics:els
View profile
More options Oct 22 1982, 2:11 am
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
From: Physics:els
Date: Fri Oct 22 02:11:51 1982
Local: Fri, Oct 22 1982 5:11 am
Subject: Re: AD&D sucks
I learned my D&D before the other thing was around. I like to think that I play the way the game was meant to be played, by using a few tables and a copy of Greyhawk as a LOOSE guideline, arbitrarily remolding things to suit my whims. This puts the DM in a much more omnipotent role. Combat is much more realistic if the DM randomly makes a character slip and fall under the swords of 15 berserkers, etc. Magic may also be made less silly. Besides, I enjoy the look of despair on the faces of AD&Ders when I throw them a curve!
els[Eric Strobel]
pur-ee!pur-phy!els
Enjoy
I liked the one about how DQ was better organized.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;318737I liked the one about how DQ was better organized.
As much as I love DQ I agree. Not the best laid-out set of rules.
As a very latecomer to AD&D 1e, I must say the DMG is FAR FAR MORE useful due to EXCELLENT organization than most gaming products I own.
The. index.
The only books better organized are the three MegaTraveller core books.
Quote from: Settembrini;318760The only books better organized are the three MegaTraveller core books.
Yeah but the errata is a killer.
Not once you lovingly updated your books!
But have they updated the damn CD collection?
Seems like that would be the ticket.
Anyhow, and back on topic, funny how things never change.
I await Old Geezer's anecdotes about how he tracked all these guys down and garrotted them one by one.
Quote from: ticopelp;318787I await Old Geezer's anecdotes about how he tracked all these guys down and garrotted them one by one.
Old Geezer's a 15th-level Assassin? Oh, wait...he doesn't play that newfangled AD&D stuff. :)
Quote from: Settembrini;318765Not once you lovingly updated your books!
You are crazy! But in a good way.
I remember Tim Maroney and Brad Templeton. Maroney I think was a pretty opinionated guy.
Hm, there was also a Kevin Maroney on Usenet and in an effort to determine if they were related (turns out they were brothers), I've come across a report that Tim died a few years ago.
I've done a lot of historical hockey research in my life. Regardless of how far back I go in the newspapers (back to the 1910s), I see stories of old players telling everyone how the "modern" game sucks shit (paraphrasing) compared to when they played. The more things change...
Same thing here. There have always been people complaining that the newest edition of D&D sucks. It will always be the way.
Quote from: estar;318789You are crazy! But in a good way.
It´s a matter of respect to the really crazy person: the Errata collator.
What a fun read!
I remember expressing similar opinions myself circa 1983, including praising Dragonquest and Runequest over 'backwards' AD&D (while still playing AD&D, of course).
Quote from: Fifth Element;318879Same thing here. There have always been people complaining that the newest edition of D&D sucks. It will always be the way.
Eric Strobel is the
only person quoted above who's talking about the newest edition. The others are just saying D&D sucks, period.
Edition wars are a much later phenomenon.
What we did have, back then: (1) RQers (and pretty much everyone else) vs. D&Ders. But this wasn't the "conservatives" vs. "progress" debate that some would like to cast as a parallel to the 4e-wars. (2) AD&Ders turning their noses up at the boxed sets because they were for babies. (WTF, you can only play to level 3?)
Ironically I did a little of both--(2), then (1).
I would have kinda agreed with the original post, except he bashes Tunnels & Trolls which is evil since T&T is fricking awesome.
Its like the first rules light RPG that lead to the more interesting games and styles of games afterwards.
I am not sure Paranoia or D6 (for examples) would have been the same if T&T hadn't come first.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988Eric Strobel is the only person quoted above who's talking about the newest edition. The others are just saying D&D sucks, period.
Edition wars are a much later phenomenon.
Easier to have edition wars the more editions you have, I suppose.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988(2) AD&Ders turning their noses up at the boxed sets because they were for babies. (WTF, you can only play to level 3?)
That sounds quit edition warry to me.
It may sound that way to you, but I can assure you, it wasn't the same at all.
Closest thing, and I can only hypothesize since I was out of D&D by then, would have been "core 3" vs. fans of OA and UA.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988Eric Strobel is the only person quoted above who's talking about the newest edition. The others are just saying D&D sucks, period.
Edition wars are a much later phenomenon.
What we did have, back then: (1) RQers (and pretty much everyone else) vs. D&Ders. But this wasn't the "conservatives" vs. "progress" debate that some would like to cast as a parallel to the 4e-wars. (2) AD&Ders turning their noses up at the boxed sets because they were for babies. (WTF, you can only play to level 3?)
Where did the DragonQuest players fit into this picture?
Quote from: ggroy;319019Where did the DragonQuest players fit into this picture?
I mostly remember indignation that TSR had killed their game after acquiring it, and assurances to kids like me who hadn't seen it that it was
way better than D&D and the folks at TSR knew that and were scared to admit it. And then a few years later when TSR released a new edition of DQ that sank like a stone, it was because TSR had (deliberately out of jealousy?) screwed it up.
Quote from: T. Foster;319021I mostly remember indignation that TSR had killed their game after acquiring it, and assurances to kids like me who hadn't seen it that it was way better than D&D and the folks at TSR knew that and were scared to admit it. And then a few years later when TSR released a new edition of DQ that sank like a stone, it was because TSR had (deliberately out of jealousy?) screwed it up.
I remember finding a copy of the SPI DragonQuest books in the bargain bin and picking it up, in those days.
At first it looked like a neat system. But after playing it for awhile, it turned out to be very slow and deadly. (At the time I wasn't familiar with wargames).
El knows this much better than I do, but I believe the TSR DQ was released simply to preserve copyright, which would have lapsed after X years OOP. Didn't the guy who bought FGU pull a similar trick?
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;319029El knows this much better than I do, but I believe the TSR DQ was released simply to preserve copyright, which would have lapsed after X years OOP. Didn't the guy who bought FGU pull a similar trick?
I think you may be thinking of a trademark, and not copyright.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if TSR was just releasing DQ as a way of preserving the DQ trademark. Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?
That was a theory at the time, I don't know if anyone knows "why" ultimately. It's the only plausible one though.
The game was, indeed, screwed up by TSR. I haven't seen the TSR edition but I know they "sanitized" it (à la 2e) and introduced a bunch of typos. It was minimally promoted after years of absence in the marketplace, and no adventures were re-printed.
Anyway, the DQers, the TFTers, the Ysgarthers, the C&Sers,and pretty much everybody else (like I said) hated on D&D for a bunch of reasons. But the dynamic was different from, say, 3e vs. 4e because unlike today, the "innovators" who put down the "old game" were in the minority, fragmented, and much weaker in terms of market power.
Quote from: ggroy;319030Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?
To my knowledge, no. Judges Guild released a couple of dual-statted modules but I'm pretty sure that was while SPI was still alive. Later TSR used the TM to produce this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1543
Quote from: ggroy;319030Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?
Yes indeed.
http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/dq.html
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;318988What we did have, back then: (1) RQers (and pretty much everyone else) vs. D&Ders. But this wasn't the "conservatives" vs. "progress" debate that some would like to cast as a parallel to the 4e-wars. (2) AD&Ders turning their noses up at the boxed sets because they were for babies. (WTF, you can only play to level 3?)
Ironically I did a little of both--(2), then (1).
From what I remember of the 80s, 'realism' was valued, which meant two things: combat, and depictions of a medieval society.
I don't remember anyone agreeing with the various 'pro rules-light' statements in D&D, to the effect that accurate simulation should take second place to ease of play and fun.
I suppose that explains why Tunnels & Trolls wasn't very popular (although despite its image, it did have 'realistic' features that D&D didn't have: damage-reducing armour, attribute requirements for weapons, XP for combat not treasure, and smaller creatures being harder to hit with missile weapons).
PS Calling it
Advanced D&D: best marketing to nerds ever.
Quote from: ggroy;319030Did TSR ever release any DQ modules?
Yes. A friend of mine played
The Shattered Statue with his group back in the late 80s, and considers it one of the best AD&D adventures of all time. While I have no access to the product, I wouldn't be surprised - Paul Jaquays was probably the most consistently good adventure designer of that era.
Quote from: Age of Fable;319108From what I remember of the 80s, 'realism' was valued, which meant two things: combat, and depictions of a medieval society.
I don't remember anyone agreeing with the various 'pro rules-light' statements in D&D, to the effect that accurate simulation should take second place to ease of play and fun.
Oh yes, definitely familiar. That rhetorical quagmire came to dominate Hungary much later, mostly in the late 90s, but it was entirely frustrating to try and argue against the tremendous groupthink that "realism" (understood as physical world simulation and historical authenticity) could be the
only possible legitimate way of having fun with RPGs. I became fascinated, I tried to like it, and when I didn't, I drifted from gaming for three years. God bless Palladium for bringing me back.
By the late 90s I think Australia had discovered whiny vampires, although I didn't play then.
Quote from: The_Shadow;319034Yes indeed.
http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/dq.html
Aha, yes, I forgot about that one even though it's on my shelf! Well, you can make of it whatever you like--obviously it shows some support for the line by TSR, but they hedged their bets by trying to tie it to FR and, of course, dual-statting it.
Quote from: Age of Fable;319108From what I remember of the 80s, 'realism' was valued, which meant two things: combat, and depictions of a medieval society.
Oh, yes. Hârn, need I say more?
QuoteI don't remember anyone agreeing with the various 'pro rules-light' statements in D&D, to the effect that accurate simulation should take second place to ease of play and fun.
Except for D&Ders themselves, who did make that argument at times. Unfortunately it was hard to make given the apparent complexity of AD&D.
The complexity issue muddied the waters, as you have pointed out in regard to T&T. Howard Thompson had an interesting take: According to this letter (http://micro.brainiac.com/htletter.jpg) he felt that Steve Jackson had made TFT too complicated and so it wasn't as much better than D&D as HT had hoped it could be. Early prophet of light gaming, right? More like accidental prophet, if you look at Thompson's effort to "fix" TFT,
Dragons of Underearth. Yes, simpler. But as presented, the game is narrowly focused on combat and dungeoneering. It
could break free and be used as the basis of a real RPG, but D&D, any version, probably had more of the broad perspective needed to actually inspire this leap.
Interesting. I've often wondered how sales of HeroQuest and Talisman compared to those for D&D - but I guess those who know aren't telling.